Sunday, August 11, 2013

In the 2012 presidential race, the GOP had two big problems 1) They had a terrible candidate (with a liberal record) and 2) The primary seemed to drag on for months longer than it needed to. Obama had two major liabilities (Obamacare and the economy). Republican nominee Mitt Romney failed to capitalize on either. Not only did the former Massachusetts Governor sign Romneycare (which is the predecessor to the Affordable Care Act), but he failed to created any transparent economic ideas.

The GOP was stuck with a closet big government, corporatist who declared his supported for banning semi-auto rifles (in 2007) and a primary schedule that wouldn't quit. In 2016, the GOP will have to utilize its election schedule to weed out anti-gun liberals like Chris Christie and Over-the-top religious nutjobs (aka sleazy politicians preparing to be hardcore Christians to get elected).

2) Liberty loving States First
Force the candidates to appeal to voters in states with a strong culture of independent thought and liberty.
Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but she is a long way from a closet liberal (e.g. Mitt Romney) or a fascist (e.g. George Bush). As stupid as Palin seemed in 2008, I still trusted her more than McCain. And frankly, states such as Vermont, Alaska and New Hampshire are more likely to take a risk on candidates with fresh ideas. Putting these states first would limit candidates ability to become too depend on using religion to manipulate voters and therefore strengthen the eventual winner for the general election.

3) Red States before Blue States
Weed out the fake conservatives but forcing candidates to actually win over their base in the South, the American West and prove themselves in the Midwest. Why would you have the New York and D.C. Primary before Texas and Utah? And why in the hell is anyone voting in June?

The GOP is not going to win D.C. or NY, why not let Texas play a bigger role in deciding the nominee for a party is is supposedly conservative?

The answer is simple. The DNC and GOP serve the same masters and therefore the entire system is a fraud. But let's assume that it could be reformed.

4) Winner Takes ALL
Enough with letting Scrub#2 win some delegates with only 15.2% of the vote in Alaska. This models forces the weaker candidates out sooner so the better ones can gather up delegates and wrap up the nomination.

5) Shorter the schedule
Remember when Obama was bashing Romney in May 2012 and he was still
stuck in the primary. By the way, with my conservative-states-first
schedule, Romney would have had a harder time winning the primary and if
he did, he would have been done by April 30th. In 2012, it ended on June 26th. What the hell?

Is it realistic to expect Republicans never do well when there's 5 presidential candidates in the race after the South Carolina primary? Not really.

In 2008, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Paul and Giuliani were all in the South Carolina Primary. If you have six guys in the race at this point, you have a problem. it means the field is weak.

And this is why the GOP nominee lost in the general election. Remember McCain?

In 2012, Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Santorum and Perry were in the South Carolina Primary. The general election results were the same. Remember Romney?

What about 2000? Sure Bush stole the election in Florida, but I do remember there only being three candidates in the South Carolina Primary. Alan Keyes, John McCain and eventual presidential winner (and cheater) George W. Bush. Too be fair, Obama recieved plenty of votes via fraud in 2008 and 2012. but when the GOP field was small, the nominee won the general election.

In 1996, there were three GOP candidates in South Carolina: Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. However, the economy was strong and Dole was a terrible candidate.Plus, Ross Perot running as an independent didn't help. So he actually had more than three opponents.

In 1992, there were only two GOP candidates in South Carolina. But George H.W. Bush was an incumbent president. It's never a good sign to have a president being challenged by someone in his own party. One challenger is too large of a field when you're an incumbent. This only happens when you piss your own party off.

In 1988, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Pat Robertson were in South Carolina and big surprise, the GOP nominee won.

In 1984, there were no GOP challengers to Ronald Regan.

In 1980, there were only three candidates within the GOP presidential field: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and John B. Anderson.

Bottomline: Shorten the primary schedule to allow GOP nominee to battle the Democrat, use conservative states to weed out the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), use winner-take-all to weed out the scrubs and use common sense. If you have more than three candidates in a GOP presidential primary in South Carolina, the field is weak and the Republican Party is going to lose in the general election. When you have candidates that appeal to most of the conservative base, there is no need for 6 guys. Therefore, if you have 4, 5 or 6 guys, the candidates are failing to appeal to the base.

Side note: Here's a clue. If a country club Republican born into a wealthy family named Willard declares the certain guns should be banned, DON'T NOMINATE HIM. Conservative love guns, period! There's nothing wrong with being rich. In fact, I want a candidate who is successful, but if you lack charm, you can't afford to make yourself appear more out of touch by bashing the gun owners you need to win the damn election.

Use your head! The reason why Romney didn't get enough votes is because he didn't give enough people a reason to show up and vote for him. The GOP needs to stop bashing gays and start focusing on solving real problems like the deficit, unemployment, underemployment, shrinking middle class and inflation. They need to focus more on protecting gun rights, stop kissing the big banks collective ass and offer the public a real choice.